Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Ändring av talan i ljuset av rättskraften - En undersökning av rättskraftens utveckling och innebörd för 13 kap. 3 § RB

Hultkvist, Oliwer LU (2021) LAGF03 20212
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Flera olika synsätt på rättskraftens omfattning har genom historien presenterats. Traditionellt sett har ett samband mellan rättskraften i 17 kap. 11 § Rättegångsbalken (RB) och 13 kap. 3 § st. 3 RB, taleändringsregeln, utpekats. Genom Högsta domstolens avgöranden har rättskraften utvidgats och rättsläget börjat klarna. Denna uppsats syftar till att dels undersöka rättskraftens omfattning närmre, dels diskutera vad denna rättsutveckling av rättskraften innebär för 13 kap. 3 § RB. Uppsatsen syftar även till att undersöka om slutsatserna kring rättsläget motiverar lagstiftningsåtgärder på området, och i sådana fall hurdana?

Huvudregeln enligt 13 kap. 3 § RB är att väckt talan inte får ändras. Första stycket stadgar därefter ett antal... (More)
Flera olika synsätt på rättskraftens omfattning har genom historien presenterats. Traditionellt sett har ett samband mellan rättskraften i 17 kap. 11 § Rättegångsbalken (RB) och 13 kap. 3 § st. 3 RB, taleändringsregeln, utpekats. Genom Högsta domstolens avgöranden har rättskraften utvidgats och rättsläget börjat klarna. Denna uppsats syftar till att dels undersöka rättskraftens omfattning närmre, dels diskutera vad denna rättsutveckling av rättskraften innebär för 13 kap. 3 § RB. Uppsatsen syftar även till att undersöka om slutsatserna kring rättsläget motiverar lagstiftningsåtgärder på området, och i sådana fall hurdana?

Huvudregeln enligt 13 kap. 3 § RB är att väckt talan inte får ändras. Första stycket stadgar därefter ett antal undantag. I tredje stycket definieras vad som inte ska anses utgöra en ändring av talan. Det är främst tredje stycket som ansetts ha samband till rättskraften eftersom begreppet saken förekommer i såväl 13 kap. 3 § st. 3 som 17 kap. 11 § RB. Efter att Högsta domstolen låtit vissa alternativa yrkanden ingå i rättskraftens omfattning uppstår frågan om och när sådana yrkanden får framställas i en process. Om yrkandena inte förs in i processen är det inte möjligt för käranden att senare få dem prövade. Frågorna berör således inte bara tredje stycket i 13 kap. 3 § RB utan även undantagen i första stycket.

I uppsatsen genomgås och diskuteras Högsta domstolens relevanta avgöranden samt kommenterande litteratur. Oklarheter beträffande den exakta avgränsningen av rättskraftens omfattning och taleändringsregelns tolkning belyses. En de lege ferenda-argumentation förs kring 13 kap. 3 § RB mot bakgrund av rättskraftens utveckling. För att inte käranden ska lida rättsförluster måste alternativyrkanden få framställas även efter talans väckande. Detta bör få ske med stöd av 13 kap. 3 § st. 1 RB. De tillåtna taleändringarna är emellertid skrivna som undantag, vilket kan tolkas som att en taleändring enbart föreligger när saken ändras. Alternativyrkanden utgör dock samma sak som det ursprungliga yrkandet. För att undvika en tolkning som strider mot såväl ordalydelse som systematik diskuteras vissa mindre omfattande förändringar i lagtexten. (Less)
Abstract
Several different opinions on the scope of res judicata have been presented throughout history. Traditionally a connection between res judicata in chapter 17, article 11 of the Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure (RB) and the rule of amendment in chapter 13, article 3, paragraph 3 RB has been pointed out. Through the rulings of the Supreme Court the scope of res judicata has been expanded and its delimitations has begun to become clear. This thesis aims to examine the scope of res judicata in detail, and to discuss what the expansion of res judicata means for chapter 13, article 3 RB. The thesis also aims to investigate whether the conclusion on the previous questions motivates legislative actions, and in such case, what actions?

The... (More)
Several different opinions on the scope of res judicata have been presented throughout history. Traditionally a connection between res judicata in chapter 17, article 11 of the Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure (RB) and the rule of amendment in chapter 13, article 3, paragraph 3 RB has been pointed out. Through the rulings of the Supreme Court the scope of res judicata has been expanded and its delimitations has begun to become clear. This thesis aims to examine the scope of res judicata in detail, and to discuss what the expansion of res judicata means for chapter 13, article 3 RB. The thesis also aims to investigate whether the conclusion on the previous questions motivates legislative actions, and in such case, what actions?

The general rule according to chapter 13, article 3 RB is that an action brought before a court must not be amended. The first paragraph then stipulates several exceptions. The third paragraph contains a definition of what is not considered to be an amendment of the claim. It is mainly the third paragraph that has been considered to have a connection to res judicata since the term the matter is found in both chapter 13, article 3, paragraph 3 and in chapter 17, article 11. Since the Supreme Court included alternative claims in the scope of res judicata the question arises as to whether and when such claims may be made. If such claims are not brought into the process, it is not possible for the plaintiff to have them tried later. Thus, the questions concern not only the third paragraph of chapter 13, article 3 RB but also the exceptions in the first paragraph.

This thesis reviews and discusses the relevant rulings from the Supreme court and commentary literature. Uncertainties regarding the delimitations of the scope of res judicata and the interpretation of the rule of amendment are highlighted. A de lege ferenda argument is made regarding chapter 13, article 3 RB in the light of the development of res judicata. For the plaintiff´s rights not to be eroded, alternative claims must be allowed even after the action has been brought. Such claims should be allowed according to chapter 13, article 3, paragraph 1 RB. However, the permissible amendments are written as exceptions, which can be interpreted as meaning that an amendment only exists when the matter changes. Alternative claims now constitute the same matter as the original claim. To avoid an interpretation that is contrary to wording and systematics, certain minor changes in the law are discussed. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Hultkvist, Oliwer LU
supervisor
organization
course
LAGF03 20212
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
processrätt, civil procedure, rättskraft, taleändring
language
Swedish
id
9069538
date added to LUP
2022-02-15 11:37:24
date last changed
2022-02-15 11:37:24
@misc{9069538,
  abstract     = {{Several different opinions on the scope of res judicata have been presented throughout history. Traditionally a connection between res judicata in chapter 17, article 11 of the Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure (RB) and the rule of amendment in chapter 13, article 3, paragraph 3 RB has been pointed out. Through the rulings of the Supreme Court the scope of res judicata has been expanded and its delimitations has begun to become clear. This thesis aims to examine the scope of res judicata in detail, and to discuss what the expansion of res judicata means for chapter 13, article 3 RB. The thesis also aims to investigate whether the conclusion on the previous questions motivates legislative actions, and in such case, what actions?

The general rule according to chapter 13, article 3 RB is that an action brought before a court must not be amended. The first paragraph then stipulates several exceptions. The third paragraph contains a definition of what is not considered to be an amendment of the claim. It is mainly the third paragraph that has been considered to have a connection to res judicata since the term the matter is found in both chapter 13, article 3, paragraph 3 and in chapter 17, article 11. Since the Supreme Court included alternative claims in the scope of res judicata the question arises as to whether and when such claims may be made. If such claims are not brought into the process, it is not possible for the plaintiff to have them tried later. Thus, the questions concern not only the third paragraph of chapter 13, article 3 RB but also the exceptions in the first paragraph. 

This thesis reviews and discusses the relevant rulings from the Supreme court and commentary literature. Uncertainties regarding the delimitations of the scope of res judicata and the interpretation of the rule of amendment are highlighted. A de lege ferenda argument is made regarding chapter 13, article 3 RB in the light of the development of res judicata. For the plaintiff´s rights not to be eroded, alternative claims must be allowed even after the action has been brought. Such claims should be allowed according to chapter 13, article 3, paragraph 1 RB. However, the permissible amendments are written as exceptions, which can be interpreted as meaning that an amendment only exists when the matter changes. Alternative claims now constitute the same matter as the original claim. To avoid an interpretation that is contrary to wording and systematics, certain minor changes in the law are discussed.}},
  author       = {{Hultkvist, Oliwer}},
  language     = {{swe}},
  note         = {{Student Paper}},
  title        = {{Ändring av talan i ljuset av rättskraften - En undersökning av rättskraftens utveckling och innebörd för 13 kap. 3 § RB}},
  year         = {{2021}},
}